Research program · 17 July 2026
The Research Program
Current work comprises Tarski Coherence, Compositional Accountability, and BABEL v2. The coherence-fee execution predictor was rejected in July 2026. Formal gluing results remain in scope; current receipting work concerns persistence, authority, reliance, challenge, and remedy.
Program boundaries
Formal, empirical, and operational scope
Formal scope
Cohomology tests whether modeled local claims glue into a global account.
Empirical status
Current evidence does not support coherence fee as a predictor of execution failure.
Receipting scope
Receipts preserve claims, authority, scope, evidence, reliance, witnessing, and recourse; they do not establish the underlying event.
Current program
Priority records
Each record includes a falsifier and external-review state.
- priorityv1
Tarski Coherence
QuestionWhich degree-1 Hodge-Tarski statements hold for finite lattices beyond vector spaces?
The verified result is an exact graph-theoretic characterization; the unrestricted conjecture is false.
- priorityv2-draft
BABEL v2
QuestionDo structural signals predict execution failure on independently authored workflows?
The claim is unverified; advancement requires the frozen partner evaluation and held-out gate.
Frontier
Current frontier
Public living records outside the frozen Technical Spine edition.
- frontierdraft-2026-07
The Disclosure Deficit
QuestionWhich fee-family results remain after removing the topology, safety, and prediction claims?
- frontierv1-draft
SHEAF
QuestionDoes the local-to-global sheaf framework extend to heterogeneous agents?
- frontierv1
Compositional Incoherence Is a Parity
QuestionWhen is compositional incoherence invisible to bounded-radius certification?
- frontierv0.1-methods-draft
The Golden Gate
QuestionCan semantic-control systems be evaluated for accepting, refusing, requesting evidence, preserving choice, and abstaining for the correct checkable reason?
- frontierv0.1-internal-gate
Interpolant Envelope
QuestionWhen can a finite disputed predicate be safely defined in shared vocabulary, partially certified, or disproved by same-reduct countermodels?
- frontierv0.4-internal-draft
No Free Precedent
QuestionUnder what explicit reason, authority, scope, closure, and epoch may one forum finding govern a later case?
Reading routes
Corpus entry points
Formal foundations
Tarski Coherence, Composition Doctrine, and SCPI define the verified lattice-sheaf results and their scope.
Systems and accountability
Occurrence coverage, persistent witnessing, authority binding, non-equivocation, reliance, and reachable remedy.
Standard implementation
Glyph specifies claim boundaries and conformance. Bulla implements the reference mechanisms.
Program history
The lineage archive records the evidence, withdrawals, retained results, and successor work.
Supporting corpus
Supporting records
- supportingdraft-2026-07
Compositional Accountability
QuestionWhen do local accountability records compose into one challenge-time account across owners?
- supportingv1
Column-Matroid Backbone
QuestionWhich matroid identity underlies the disclosure deficit?
- supportingv1
Signed-Incidence Structure
QuestionWhich field-independent rank results follow from signed-incidence structure?
- supportingv2
A Witness Logic for Semantic Composition
QuestionWhich numerical invariant follows from the seam-independent disclosure axioms?
- supportingv1
SCPI
QuestionHow does predicate invention decompose into topological, model-theoretic, and definability gates?
- supportingv1
Bridge
QuestionCan bilateral validity coexist with failure to specify a coherent bridge?
- supportingv1
Seam
QuestionWhich protocol records local interface claims that do not compose automatically?
- supportingv8
Bitcoin After Money
QuestionWhich settlement requirements follow from autonomous coordination without a trusted issuer?
- supportingv1
Coherence Cliff
QuestionHow do the structural measures scale in the frozen experimental regime?
- supportingv1
Local Interface Descriptions Do Not Compose
QuestionDoes representation affect access to non-local interface predicates?
- supportingv1
The Stitching Defect
QuestionWhich defect appears when two locally analyzed systems are stitched across a boundary?
- supportingv1
The Composition Tax
QuestionWhat does the live proxy report about the cost of semantic composition?
- supportingv1
Local Validity Does Not Compose
QuestionCan locally valid interfaces fail to support a globally coherent account?
Lineage & corrections
Historical decisions and retained results
Withdrawn work remains citable with its decision date, rejected claims, retained results, and successors.